Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to “wipe out” Iran have raised questions about the normalization of mass violence and the erosion of international norms governing warfare. In recent months, as tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated—particularly around the strategic Strait of Hormuz—Trump has issued multiple warnings involving large-scale destruction of Iranian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants. Such threats, critics argue, could constitute war crimes under international law.

The latest episode occurred during a period of heightened conflict in April, when U.S. air strikes against Iranian targets were met with the risk of retaliation. In an interview on Fox News, Trump declared that Iran would be “totally wiped out as a country” if it responded militarily. This statement drew relatively little media attention despite its severity, reflecting a pattern of provocative remarks from Trump that have become frequent enough to seem routine.

Earlier in April, Trump issued a series of menacing statements, including a claim that Iran could be “taken out in one night” and that the United States had plans to destroy vital infrastructure, leaving it “burning, exploding, and never to be used again.” On April 7, he set a deadline for Iranian compliance and posted on his social media platform that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” prompting widespread international condemnation. The United Nations Secretary-General and the Pope both criticized the threats, and some human rights experts suggested that such language could amount to a threat of genocide under the UN Genocide Convention.

Despite the backlash, Trump did not retract or apologize for his statements. A reported ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran was announced by Pakistan’s prime minister shortly before the deadline expired, but the inflammatory rhetoric remained unaddressed by Trump.

This pattern of threats is viewed by some analysts as part of a broader shift in the international order, where longstanding norms and legal protections appear to be weakening. Observers have pointed to the leniency shown toward Israel following its military actions in Gaza and Lebanon, noting that the lack of accountability for alleged war crimes there may have contributed to a climate in which aggressive rhetoric and actions in the Middle East are increasingly accepted by Western governments.

During Trump’s second term, his rhetoric has become more erratic and overtly autocratic. Meanwhile, critics highlight that key Western powers, including the Biden administration, have previously undermined international institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) by obstructing efforts to hold Israel accountable for its operations in Gaza. This, they argue, has weakened the global legal framework designed to prevent mass violence against civilian populations.

In subsequent months, Trump continued to issue provocative warnings linking U.S. military retaliation to Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting the U.S. would target civilian infrastructure in response. Such threats, experts say, normalize the deliberate targeting of civilian sites and infrastructure—a violation of international humanitarian law.

While many Western leaders often dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as bluster, the persistent use of incendiary language risks desensitizing the public and policymakers to the prospect of wholesale destruction and civilian suffering. The escalation of conflict in the region and the broader erosion of international legal norms raise concerns about the future of global efforts to restrain mass violence and uphold human rights.